Some Things For You

On Terror

2007-05-27T00:25:00.000Z

Blair describes the flight of suspects under control orders as "a symptom of a society which put civil liberties before fighting terror" according to the BBC.

Under new laws being considered, people will be charged up to £5000 for refusing to answer police questions under "stop and quiz" powers. Questions that can be asked with no reason or suspicion.

That's not fighting terror. That is terror. It's not even the foundation of a police state, but one of the basic infrastructures. Under such legislation, you may be stopped at any point, questioned on your identity and movements and then charged if the police are unsatisfied with your answers.

I'm sick, fucking sick, of "terror" being used as a justification for any new legislation. We're not America, let's have a mature discussion please. "Terror" is a brush-off. It is laziness and it is insidious. Let's have a mature discussion that extends beyond lead interview on the Today programme and an unattended, unreported Commons debate. Let's have a discussion that doesn't revert to the default of Strong Leadership on Tackling Terror. Let's have a discussion, please, a mature discussion on policy. Please.

On the Future of Political Parties

2007-05-20T17:48:00.000Z

At a time when the Prime Minister-elect is one of the key architects of the last decade of government, it can be difficult to remember that this should be a time to look to the future. But we have reached a stage of party politics that could define government for a generation or more and it is increasingly vital to reflect on how we got there and what that means for the routes available to us. As ever, the future is rooted in history.

It began with Thatcher. It was whilst in her hands that the Conservative party began to crumble, shattering in a much too strong grip. And it was under her that Labour was confined to the wilderness of opposition for longer than is natural. When Major stepped up as leader it was near miraculous that he held the party together for one more parliament and the reason must lie much more in the weakness of Labour and the Liberal Democrats than the strength of his Conservative party. The fall that began with Thatcher climaxed spectacularly in 1997 with Labour’s crushing victory. The changes made to the machinery of the Labour party before 1997 are now mirrored by the changes that Cameron is making to the public front of his Conservative party.

The changes Blair wrought in the Labour party are probably best crystallised in the unceremonious dumping of Clause Four from the party constitution – the clause that called for the nationalisation of the means of production – and the manner in which the trade unions, broken by Thatcher, were marginalised. These were the institutions, the ideology upon which the Labour party was founded, founded by even, and they were discarded with an unsettling casualness. But eighteen years is a long time to be on the wrong side of the dispatch box and desperation for power began to set in, much as it is doing to the opposition now. As the years of exile to the wilderness of opposition tick by, parties have started to become rasher and rasher. Nothing is sacred; nothing is not worth sacrificing for power. Labour was hardly a socialist party before Blair, but the distance it has moved is remarkable. This is a familiar story and one that needs not to be retold. Suffice to say, nowadays power is held not by Parliament or the Cabinet, but by the press office of Number 10.

Today we can see the opposition struggling to make similar renovations in time for the next election. Again, this can be crystallised in a few acts, but these ones are much more ominous than even the loss of Clause Four. It is Cameron’s new logo that really tells us about his party. Gone is the strong, bold, Conservative-blue fist and heavy, imperious font. Instead, there is a so soft, it’s barely there scribble logo and gentle lowercase letters, in a pastel blue. If the old fist was too reminiscent of “the nasty party”, then the new tree reveals the Conservatives as a party willing to do anything they believe to be popular. What is most insidious, however, is not the logo as such, but what the change was. When Blair wanted to reform Labour, he began with the internal workings – Clause Four. Yes it was a move designed to appeal to voters he might not otherwise reach, but it was at least a policy decision. Cameron on the other hand has missed this first step and is instead rebuilding the public face of the party: everything else seems to follow from that. Policy is whatever pleases at that instant. In opposition perhaps this is a luxury allowed, but it means that there is no clear view of the party when the public comes to the ballot box.

What does this all mean? Where does the future lie? The lesson we are forced to draw from this state of affairs, then, is the danger of two parties that believe not in a theory or philosophy or even a kind of pragmatism, but in power. And they are opposed to nothing but not being in power. The boom and bust of the Conservatives under Thatcher was the beginning and we must be wary not to let it continue or escalate further after Blair. As the electorate we hold the keys to Parliament and Downing Street. We must be prudent in deciding whom to lend them to and for how long.

The level of political debate in the US

2007-03-31T19:16:00.000Z

Sometimes I dispair at the standard of political debate in this country: newspapers seem to be dumbing down and Newsnight can be a little hit or miss. But much as much as I read about America's coverage, I was shocked to see this clip from Fox News: America's most watched news channel according to Wikipedia.

No one comes out well here. Rosie O'Donnel, someone I have previously had respect for, sounds like a mad ranting bint. Anyone stupid enough to swallow Loose Change's story deserves a thorough beating. Conserva-babe Kirsten Powers and radio-cockBill Cunningham are even worse. That a majority of Americans accept this idiot babble shocks me. America is the most powerful nation. It'd be nice if their media was intelligent enough to give a bit of proper discussion to its people.

The hillarious overtones of 300

2007-03-28T16:43:00.000Z

300 is already a very, very funny movie. When plenty of blood, high-camp sensibilities and Miller's style clash, you know the result will be good.

However, when the propaganda and xenophobic overtones smacked me about the face, it was wonderful. The story is one of the "free men" of Greece - freedom is an oft-mentioned concept in 300 - against the forces of "mysticism and tyranny" of Persia. The Persian God-king is fabulous (Iranians are sissies) and commands an enormous army of mutants (brown people and muslims are monsters), whilst the Spartans are almost unbearable masculine. They are all muscle and testosterone and rarely wear clothes, compared to the headscarves and leering masks of the Persian menace. The civilizations clash and the Free Men of Sparta gladly lay down their lives for their state.

Honestly, it was hillarious. The politics was so overbearing, even more than the gore, but twice as enjoyable.

Zurich's slogan

2007-03-04T12:16:00.000Z

Zurich's new slogan is "Because change happenz".

I don't think I can say any more about that without vomiting.

Sexism on Campus

2007-01-24T08:35:00.000Z

Originally appeared in Nouse.

It may be many years since feminism’s peak, but apparently sexism still blights our society. York University has recently been in the spotlight for its alleged “institutional sexism”. Online magazine The First Post published an article singling out this university for its chauvinistic campus practices, primarily Goodricke’s Playboy Mansion and the Pole Exercise club. York was not alone: Loughborough’s student union was criticised for extending an invitation to both Nuts’ Brat Pack Tour and FHM’s High Street Honeys. Kat Stark, NUS Women’s Officer even compared such things to a theft of feminism, a claim that, if fair and accurate, should be troubling for just about everyone.

The most important question then is: are we at a university infested with sexism? Or, more prosaically: is there really such sexism on York campus?

Those who have had criticism levelled at them naturally disagree. Ben Wardle, Goodricke Chair, and Matt Hood, President of Pole Exercise, both outright denied the charges of sexism, and it seems with good reason. Goodricke has yet to receive a complaint about its events and their popularity on campus can barely be denied. Last year the AU nominated Pole Exercise as its club of the year, not least in recognition of their charity achievements: last year Pole Exercise raised almost £1,500 for Medicine Sans Frontiers with a single event.

Besides, perhaps Pole Exercise is liberating and empowering for the women of York. But Club President Matt Hood dismissed this idea out of hand, and rightly so. As he put it, “it’s just an exercise class. We keep people in good health, that's the point, that's the only point.” Pole Exercise is fun and healthy and, even better, most people don’t seem to realise that they were even exercising until after the classes. The sessions focus on fitness moves rather than dancing and are open to anyone. The nearest thing to sexism in Pole Exercise is the logo: a girl on a pole. But even that is stylised and abstract. Is there really a problem here?

What of Goodricke’s evocation of the Playboy brand to market events? Playboy is a name that is certainly connected with pornography and the objectification of women, undeniably so – from the polyamorous Hugh Heffner to the famed centrefolds and Playmates. But, as Ben Wardle emphasises, describing Goodricke as the Playboy Mansion becomes ironic as soon as one calls to mind the less-than-palatial hall in which the event takes place. Irony is, of course, subjective and maybe its invocation is an ad hoc defence. Further, if irony is a defence or not is even more difficult to say. But if we can accept the rampant anti-Semitism of Borat or, less controversially, the high camp irony of the recent Yorkie adverts without harm, can we not also make space for the Playboy Mansion? That Goodricke JCR is yet to receive a complaint implies an agreement across campus.

However, maybe things aren’t quite so positive as the picture just painted. Perhaps it is true that York is not a festering hot bed of chauvinism, misogyny and testosterone, but that might not be the whole story. Perhaps the complaints made by The First Post should be reflected onto current British society as a whole rather than just our little corner. It cannot be denied that the maxim “sex sells” still hold currency in the advertising world and the steady liberalisation of our culture has been trailed by an equally steady sexualisation. From the cheek-caressing temptress promised by the Gillette adverts to the proliferation of “lads mags” – FHM, Maxim and Nuts – sex is everywhere. And if at any point this seems like a singularly male phenomenon, do not forget the “Top 10 Tips to Please Your Man” features in the aspirational women’s magazines, the orgasmic Herbal Essences adverts or the media obsession with whom our celebrities sleep with. But so often, this sexualisation leans in favour of the masculine, certainly in favour of certain gender stereotypes. The often-raised example is the difference in connotation and meaning between the word “slag” and the word “stud”. There is even an asymmetry in the terms “man” and “woman” that could be seen as revealing - though the etymology of these words is not necessarily indicative of sexism.

Relative to the rest of British culture, the name of a termly campus event and the nature of a fitness club seem moderate and tepid in nature. Yes students should be progressive and radical: that is so much of their social role, but there are certainly better places to direct energy and anger. The sexism in British culture lies at a deeper level than the Goodricke ents team.

British Weather and the Death Toll

2007-01-18T20:37:00.000Z

A horrific implication of the immediate nature of new media has been making itself much too apparent today, as storms have whipped through much of Britain. I've been internetting on and off all day, and watched as the death count has risen on the BBC RSS feed, from two this morning to eight now.

This is not pleasant. It means I know that five people died whilst I studied and another one whilst I played Wario Ware. It's a stark and grim and deeply uncomfortable thing to watch.

LATER: The number went up to nine whilst I wrote this post. It's awful.

The best animation ever

2007-01-17T09:57:00.001Z

Are people idiots?

2007-01-16T00:11:00.000Z

Ambulance drivers drive 200 miles in the wrong direction, following satnav instructions.

Overly obedient German drivers crash following satnav instructions.

What is wrong with people? Is everyone a bloody idiot?

The news is rubbish

2007-01-08T14:03:00.000Z

It must be so dull to be a journalist these last few weeks. Nothing has happened. Yet, there has been so much potential. Prescott as acting prime minister must have created some kind of headline story. I thought it was his job to keep a number of journalists employed, seems he can't even do this properly. I want scandal.

Instead, I am constantly reminded of 'what is going to happen in 2007' and the Ashes. All fair and well, but if I have to read that 'later this year, Bush will become the most experienced G7 leader' again or England lose again, I will have to start making the news myself. An idea that comes to mind would be invading a country. I've always wanted one of those. Obviously invading somewhere where they can fight back would be a silly idea, that's why i'm off to the Dominican Republic, where their military expenditure is $0. I cannot lose. Genius.

Then I can be portrayed as a wicked dictator. Wicked in the sence that i'm great, not that i'm a tyrant or something like that. Although I can't rule that out. I think i'll have to leave a little subclause in the constitution, 'may be a tyrant if forced'. I mean, I wouldn't want to. Just if it was necessary. People would love it. I have found there can be too much free thought and happiness, I can't let them get away with it.

Write about that, Mr Guardian.

Book: A Human Being Died That Night

2007-01-04T15:32:00.000Z

I'm currently reading A Human Being Died That Night, by Pumla Gobodo-Madiizela, an incredibly well-written but harrowing account of her meetings with the man known as the Prime Evil of the apartheid, Eugene de Kock.

As I was reading, I became more concious of the language and writing, partially because the author was herself discussing language, specifically that usede to relate traumatic incidents. And as I read account after unbelievable account of horror and so much misery - husbands shot in front of sons, reducing the child to an inconsolable wreck for the rest of his days, for example - I became so glad, so very glad of the words and the pages that seperated me from these stories. I was finding them through several degrees of seperation: they were told to the author and then filtered through the writing to me. Where many would want writing to be a window or doorway, through which one can step and engage in the fiction, I wanted Gobodo-Madiizela's words to be a barrier or even a fortress, to protect me from the narrative. How the victims of such horrors survive as themselves, I can barely imagine.

"Sexy and Factual"

2007-01-04T12:25:00.000Z

Men and Motors, that venerable broadcaster, is to be airing a series named The All American Strip Off. Not spectacular news in itself, but the contestants are to keep video diaries that will be "sexy and factual". This is such an amazing description. If even half of my life could be called sexy and factual, I would be a much happier man.

Little Chef: A Sad Start to the Year

2007-01-03T21:32:00.000Z

Little Chef enters administration: from the BBC

This upsets me perhaps more than it should. Little Chef is something that featured quite a large amount in my childhood. Despite the staff whose lacksadasical attitude to sersvice bordered on the offensive, terrible food and general British crapness, being taken to our local Little Chef was quite a treat: the several months in between the mysterious fire and subsequent refitting were difficult ones.

To be completely honest, essentially, the pleasure was tied entirely to the lolly given at the end of the meal, kept in the mysterious jar hidden behind the till.

Regadless, it is a sad year that starts with such a loss.

2006-12-24T18:18:00.000Z

The NRA have a graphic novel coming out.

It is too wonderful for words.

Strictly Come Dancing

2006-12-24T01:42:00.000Z

For a while I was living with the thought that 'Celebrity Love Island' was the most unentertaining programme on televsion. How wrong I was. Having been surrounded by what can only be described as 'people' for the past few days, I have been subjected to conversation regarding said television programme.

Today, I could not move without it being mentioned, be it tv, newspaper, internet... Thinking about it, I cannot understand the appeal one bit. People you have vaguely heard of given a dance partner and told to dance then being voted off. Rubbish. Where's the scandal? Where's the loveable dim-witted tart? Where's the fake dancer that was put in to pose as a dancer then ends up marrying a contestant? Where's the page 3 model falling for and marrying a failed popstar who go on to release a hideous christmas single?

I don't know. People will watch anything.

In other thoughts, no-one ever wins on the Great British Quiz on channel 5. They offer ridiculous sums of money, and yet people will still call up and give their answer to a seemingly easy question. Hmmm. Something is going on....

Bono to be Knighted

2006-12-23T13:00:00.000Z

But as an Irish citizen, he shall not be allowed to use the title "Sir".

It amazes me that someone so devoted to peace, prosperity and generally groovy things can be so widely hated. It has to be granted to Bono that he has done some Good Things.

Why, then, can I not help but hate him and those stupid bloody sun glasses and his smug little smile and his bandmate The Edge?

Sometimes I just want a big man to punch Bono right in his mouth.

Monkey Magazine - Another Publication for Idiots

2006-12-22T18:12:00.000Z

Monkey Magazine is a new mens magazine.

God-damn I hate those magazines and the sneery, laddish way they revel in their own stupidity. But this is not why I write. Rather, Monkey is to be online only.

This, again, is not really something to write about. So another website has lauched. Hoorah. But there is more to be said yet. First, it is being produced by Dennis Publishing, who also publish, among another titles, Maxim. Clearly they know their stuff in the field of idiot-mags. This marks then an interesting point at which the big magazine publishers are truly begining to see the possibilities of the web. And, finally, starting to take serious notice of their declining sales.

Bizarrely though, the magazine is, well, just that. a magazine. Or at least, a horrible faux-magazine. Complete with terrible page turning animation and a contents page that included page numbers but no links. Why? Why the hell would anyone produce such an over-Flashed product? In the modern internet, there is simply no reason for it. Just make a God-damned website. The internet is a medium, not a way of showing other media. How long untill corporations learn this?

BBC air Tom Stephens interview, despite assurances of anonymity

2006-12-19T14:37:00.000Z

BBC Editors Blog

Stephens was interviewed some time ago as park of the background to the case: it appears he was promised that it would not be broadcast and he would not be named.

With a surprising lack of integrity, the BBC has dang old gone ahead and broadcast these interviews anyway.

Mr Stephens should be presumed innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law; it is not for the BBC to judge these things. And untill that point, his confidences should have been kept.

That another man has been subsequently arrested shows quite how complex the case is, and the BBC had no right to presume to air something they had sworn not to. Least of all because it will jeopordise their chances of getting such interviews in the future.

Girl gives birth whilst at school

2006-12-19T12:59:00.000Z

From the BBC

I don't wish to moralise here, but I think that there is an element to this story that simply cannot pass without comment.

"The Year 11 pupil is not thought to have known she was pregnant. "

It is true that I am male and, as such, have not had first-hand experience with preganacy. However, all reports seem to indicate that it is a fairly obvious 9-month process. At some point there, one expects the bearer to become aware of the growing child.

Or perhaps I am mistaken.

Why does BB3 hate us?

2006-12-16T22:57:00.001Z

Tonight's schedule:

4 episodes of Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps
2 episodes of Little Britain

Reading that listing made me do sick all in my mouth and on my shoes.

Why BBC3, why do you hate us?

Kazakhstan Build Giant Tent

2006-12-10T12:18:00.000Z

They want to build a city-sized tent.

Amazing. This sounds perfect. Imagine never walking out of your door and encountering gale force winds and heavy rain, also it can be warm all day long.

Going back to the Millennium, instead of building a crap tent and put something inside it, we should have built a giant motherfucker over, say, Scotland. It would have been amazing! People would have flocked there without the constant fear of getting swept away in a gale or freezing to death.

This is what the future is all about. Fuck going to the moon or anything, if we all just club together and build a tent over the entire earth, everyone will be happy. It even beats global warming, as the suns rays can be reflected away from the ground by the tent-ish layer of the atmosphere.

Wicked.

4oD: First impressions

2006-12-08T01:34:00.000Z

4oD is hot and willing, all naked and beta for your lust-filled gaze.

I was very excited about 4oD. It's new, it's bold and it's the future of media, right there in downloadable form. So, did it match up to my dreams?

Kinda, I guess.

The installer is small and intuitive, though one has to try hard to mess up an installer. Even so, so far, so happy.

The interface is pretty okay. It was a little slow and wasn't entierly wonderous, but does the job and looks pretty. Hopefully it will become a little more function-filled in time.

The problems kicked in when I noticed that Whose Line is it Anyway? was available! Not just that, but two of the British series, which make much better viewing than the American one, I think. Sadly however, after paying my 99p, it just plain old refused to download. I don't know why and I don't know what I can do to make it go: there wasn't any informations given.

As I weapt the kind of tears that only come from a lack of Whose Line?, I had a flick through the free offerings. Frankly, they were token at best. Starkey's Monarchy is going to appeal to some, sure, but beyond that Trigger Happy was all that really caught my eye as a "big name" programme. Eventually I settled on Hardeep Does, a very 'meh' show by a comedian who wants to do comedy and thinking, but doesn't quite make the jump across. However, it did download ludicrously fast. 175mb in less than 5 minutes, was impressive. And the quality looks broadcast.

This was where the second problem kicked in: you can only watch the show in the 4oD player which is shockingly bad. There is no way to chose a size manually. Worse, in a quick skip around the obvious places on my computer I just couldn't find the files to watch in software of my choice. I sincerely hope this is changed for the final release.

Overall this is an extremely welcome thing. A couple of minor things, but I'm still very happy.

edit: Just finnished Hardeep Does and it was crazy frustrating. I just wnated to sit down with the man and say where he went wrong. Which I guess is good thinking-making.

And another thing: 40D opens external pages in I.E., instead of your default. Which is absurdly irritating and exactly the kind of thing that makes me stop using software.

BBC Sports Personality Of The Year

2006-12-07T18:35:00.000Z

Just like this years Mercury Music prize shortlist, this years shortlist for Sports Personality of the year has been severely disappointing. Between them, I think I may have achieved more this year with a few badminton wins and picking matching socks in the morning.

Lets go through the list: Monty Panesar, a cricketer who cannot get picked in the England cricket team over the awful Ashley Giles. Andy Murray, only because Henman is worse. Zara Phillips, if she wasn't royalty, she would not be there. Phil Taylor?! Like darts is even a sport. Jenson Button, (the token motor racing entry) won a race. David fucking Walliams is even there for swimming the channel, which although an achievement doesn't give him the right to appear on the list when thousands of professional sportsmen and women strive everyday of the year and barely get a look in. The only positive is that while he was training, he wasn't attempting comedy....

A lot can be said about the favourite, Darren Clarke. I don't mean to offend anyone or appear an inconsiderate bastard by saying this, but the only reason he is in there is because his wife died. That is a fact. Otherwise Ian Woosnam would have been selected as the golf entry. The only one of them who has achieved anything this year, is Joe Calzaghe, who after 42 undefeated boxing matches actually deserves to win the award.

But my main point is, that British sport is in such bad shape. Kids are too fat and lazy to even go outside, let alone have the time to practice a sport in the few minutes they aren't in front of the tv screen. I blame the parents. And the government for not providing anywhere near adequate funding to actually let anybody explore any whisker of talent they have. In the last year, 2 sports centres near me have closed down, leaving a privately funded health club that I can't afford to attend. Scandalous! Rant over.

It's about bloody time

2006-12-05T11:38:00.000Z

NASA are planning a moon base!

And about time too. It's been the future for almost seven years now and I tell you, it still seems just like the present. Where are my meal-pills? My floating cars? Teleporter-related mishaps? Time-travel adventures? I mean honestly. I've not even entered hyperspace yet.

Pull your socks up, Scientists. I demand more future.

DeVito

2006-12-01T09:46:00.000Z

Danny DeVito drunk on American TV

There are few things more enjoyable than watching celebrities really being themselves in otherwise utterly artificial surroundings. In the above clip DeVito looks to be drunk as a cunt and is hillarious. And whilst Rosie O'Donnel handles the situation brilliantly, whoever her generic co-host is fails utterly to respond in an apropriate way: spending the entire interview trying to get back to scripted questions, floundering in the face of something TV-school just did not prepare her for.

A beautiful idea

2006-11-30T19:22:00.000Z

Todays Ze Frank contains an absolutey wonderful image of American forces airdropping Segways and Rolexs, in a bid to devalue these luxury items. As these saturate the market, the value of goods such as food will rise, giving the working people of North Korea more power.

A truly delicious idea, exactly what we have come to expect of Ze Frank at his best.

Should Blair have apologised for slavery?

2006-11-30T18:43:00.000Z

Tory MP calls for an apology for Henry VIII's treatment of women, as a satire of Blair's recent comments on the slave trade.

This, for me, raises an interesting question. The slave trade in Britain ended 200 years ago. This means that one has to travel back quite a few generations to reach an ancestor who was around at the the time. Leaving aside questions of whether what Blair said went far enough (though, let's face it, there was absolutely no pragmatic point in not turning his statement into a full apology. There was hardly going to be backlash), I think it is interesting to consider if an apology was necessary now at all. After all, neither he as a person, nor we as a country have had any direct contact with legal slavery and not much indirect contact either.

True, it can be said that as a member of the white middle class, I am enjoying this position because of historical consequences of the slave trade. But even if this is the case - and I'm not convinced that after 200 years it is, though I acknowledge that this is a largely subjective and unanswerable question - I did not chose to be born to white, middle-class parents. That I am in this context is nothing to do with me, it is an accident of birth. So if I do enjoy indirect benefits of the slave trade, it is not my responsibility and not my fault. Nor anyone else's. It is simply the way things are. So why should Blair have apologised for the actions of people he is not connected to in any way, except a sharing of geopgraphical territory over a wide time-span?

Did his statement change anything? I don't think so: no one who had previously been pro or ambivalent towards slavery, if indeed there are any such people, is likely to have been galvanised towards a change of mind.

This is not to say that I don't think actions aimed at neutralising or mitigating historical, social circumstances are anything but necessary, but I feel that an apology is irrelevant - Blairs semi-apology even more so.

Darwin Does Not Threaten God

2006-11-27T14:01:00.001Z

US Group Truth in Science has supplied creationist teaching materials to British schools.

This debate has rumbled on for a ridiculously long time now. There is absolutely no way that Creationism should be taught in Science classes. It is not apropriate, by the very definition of science.

I won't go into this debate in any detail: everyone knows the details and everyone has a detail. But it just boggles my mind some times. I just can't grasp how stupid people can be sometimes. A merest flicker of thought allows one to see that Darwin does not impinge on Christianity. A further flicker to see that science should be taught in science classes and religion in religious education classes. Honestly, I despair sometimes.

A Silly BBC Thing

2006-11-26T10:58:00.000Z

via Jeff Jarvis

How in touch are the BBC with their audience? It is a question I ask myself daily. Well, now we have cold, hard statistical data: http://cgriley.com/bbctouch/.

It's a silly little thing that compares side by side what the BBC thinks we should be reading and what we are. If you ignore the slightly overblown paranoia of "what the BBC tells us" overtones, it's quite fun. Most worrying though, is the level at which most of the audience is reading. Over the past two weeks "Cruise" is second and "Cruise Holmes" third. Today, "Danish" and "Road Safety", the story about Danish road campaigns with topless models is fourth and sixth.

Naturally I also enjoyed the Danish article, but Tomkat? People are idiots.

A Nouse Article

2006-11-24T11:59:00.000Z

The Trident II (D5) is a submarine-launched missile, armed with about 3 nuclear warheads. Their destructive power is estimated as that of eight Hiroshimas. The details of the British nuclear armament was only finalised in 1998 with Labour’s Strategic Defence Review and the Trident system was planned to be in service at least until 2024. So why is this a hot issue all of a sudden? As a programme to develop replacements for the Trident submarines would be a lengthy one, such decisions need to be taken long in advance. Tony Blair recently announced that a white paper would report on the issue in December and then, after a three month consultation, MPs will be voting. Naturally, this will not be a free vote for Labour MPs.

Gordon Brown, in stark contrast to his usually cautious fiscal policy, has publicly backed the most expensive option available: a full replacement for the Trident submarine force, warning against compromising on the British nuclear deterrent. But the truth is, this is estimated to cost anything up to £40 billion over its lifetime. The important question, then, is are we really getting value for money here? £40 billion is an awful lot of cash to be spending: it is £2billion more than this years’ total defence budget or, to put it in a different light, almost half an NHS. Frustratingly though, the answer is that a Trident replacement is a poor way, an unwise way to spend British tax money. The very notion of a nuclear deterrent is a hang-up from a forgotten era – one of towering superpowers and diametrically opposed, utterly incompatible ideologies across continents. During the Cold War, a nuclear deterrent was seen as vital – theories of Mutually Assured Destruction bounced alongside flashpoints that came scarily close to a full-scale war – the Cuban Missile Crisis for example. But the Cold War is long over and the world is a markedly different place – something which the proponents of a nuclear arsenal fail to recognise. The threat to national security no longer comes to us from large nations visibly hostile to our way of life. There is no USSR-esque bloc of territories that we can aim our guns at anymore. The “Moscow Criterion” no longer applies, even in spirit. The threat now, as our Prime Minister spends so long telling us, is from those ambiguous and elusive terrorists. If, God-forbid, a small cell of perhaps ten people manage to detonate a dirty bomb in a city centre, who should we send our retaliation to? Who should we bomb into submission? Terrorism is borne of alienation and nuclear weaponry is not the most integrating of things.

What else can £40billion buy then? Quite a lot really. Perhaps the best way to decide how to allocate this money is by examining the threats to our nation. Terrorism, yes. But I barely think that the 7/7 bombers had second thoughts when they considered the British Trident submarine patrolling the ocean. Surely an even more compelling danger is that of climate change – this much money would stand Britain in good stead to help tackle the problem and mitigate economic fallout as far as possible. Or maybe our ailing education or health systems could be helped out a little. More and more schools fall beneath Ofsted’s standards, more and more hospitals fail their patients. I’m sure that the fight on terror could use more resources, if security is your thing. There is only so much the intelligence forces can do on their current budget. There are plenty of better, more cost-effective ways to spend this cash.

It is not inconceivable to rid Britain of nuclear weaponry. Indeed, Labour have already started such a programme with the 1998 Strategic Defence Review. The numbers of warheads maintained was dropped by a third to 200; nuclear submarines were limited to 48 warheads, from 96 (though due to technological advances, this was actually a 50% increase on the Trident predecessor) and maintenance of other types of nuclear delivery systems, such as “free-fall” aircraft weaponry, was discontinued. True, this is a moderate reduction, but even this sadly strikes Britain out ahead of the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council – also the other four designated Nuclear Weapon States on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In fact, this is the very treaty that obliges us to reduce our nuclear holdings. The three pillars of the Non-Proliferation Treaty include disarmament, requiring a “treaty on general and complete disarmament”. Of course, none of the Nuclear Weapon States have done any such thing – any such discussion over the last three decades has been shelved on one pretext or another.

What would happen to Britain if she were to shed her nuclear capabilities? Would she be endlessly bombarded with nukes from manifold enemy states? Would she be vulnerable to invasion? Well, dang, the 186 UN-recognised non-nuclear countries seem to get by okay. And maybe if we can step out in front of the pack by disarming our nuclear capabilities, we can start leading the world towards a more peaceful future. Britain may not be a military superpower, but she could be a moral one.

4oD

2006-11-20T00:57:00.000Z

Four on Demand, yo.

And about time. Since the advent of Bittorrent and YouTube, the internet savvy viewer has had a kind of illegal Video On Demand-lite version. Complete series of major American trash (24, Prison Break, Lost) and British comedies (Extras, The IT Crowd, Snuff Box) are ten-a-penny on the internet and the demand is high. It is shocking, then, that it has taken a major broadcaster so long to capitalise on this market.

I am a very important person. I have places to go and people to see. You know how it is. I am not always available to watch the sophisticated, highbrow television that I desire to. Nor, sadly, can I afford the luxury of Sky+ and it's fancy-schmancy capabilities. Even so, I do love to watch television. But only when I want to, not when a television executive wants me to.

In 2003, Google made £3.2 billion. Money on the internet is not a new thing. This year, Google is expected by some to outperform a major terestial broadcaster on UK ad revenue by £100 million.

Yet it has taken this long to bring together a captive and demanding audience, a lucrative advertising model and a product. Even the BBC missed a step here. They are leaders in the world of new media, even if they are a hulking behemoth of an organisation, and they should have realised a few staff blogs and a handful of podcasts just ain't enough anymore.

Well congratulations to Channel 4 for having the intelligence and courage to take a great big step into this brave new world. The floodgates are now open, and hopefully much more happiness will come pouring through.

November

2006-11-16T11:43:00.000Z

The month of nothing. November has to be the most depressing month on record. Nothing happens whatsoever. Hours, days, weeks go by, and what does one have to show for it? A half finished crossword and mountains of washing up bearing down on you. Already the stench of Christmas fills the air. Thoughts of children smiling and laughing fills you with more mundane thoughts. They are everywhere. I can't leave the front door.

Congestion 'Supercharge'

2006-11-15T14:05:00.000Z

Fantastic. Finally some action is being taken against the most depressing sight on our roads, the hideous 4x4. The 'supercharge' for entering the congestion charge zone in London in these 'vehicles', is one of the best examples of some form of governance actually doing something about reducing the levels of pollution emitted by this unnecessary form of transport in our choking cities. There is no need for cars like this. Just an act of utter selfishness in an attempt to stand out from the general population. Or an attempt to emulate Jack Bauer, in which case I can't encourage enough...
Not coming from London, I have no idea what the extent of this problem is, or to what extent this will do to solve it. I just find happiness in the vision of these drivers feeling victimised. Idiots.

Good news!

2006-11-15T12:06:00.000Z

Debenhams Christmas Two Day Extravaganza starts today.

It is the 15th of November.

People are idiots.

A thing that makes me do sick

2006-11-14T18:24:00.000Z

Overzealous Sports Fans

It takes a certain kind of idiocy to shout at a televised sport.
I am not talking of the moans and cheers here when fortunes change one way or the other: this is an unavoidable result of engagement with the game. Even I do that. Rather, I mean shouting at the actual match itself. Encouraging one team or player. Berating the other. Berating ones own team. Berating the referee or umpire. Berating the commentator. Berating the crowd, even. So often, just generally berating.
This kind of behaviour surely implies an absence of some vital brain-function that allows one to differentiate between reality and moving images on a screen. Maybe this even demonstrates a defective theory of mind: the over-zealous sports fan cannot tell what does and does not possess consciousness. He does not understand why the pixels flowing over the television screen do not respond to his shouts. His stupidity is one so deep that he not only misunderstands the workings of a television but also to utterly fails to grasp how we can assign a mind to an object. This is a fundamental, metaphysical idiocy on a massive level.
I really detest these people. With their beer bellies and their Carling, I really detest them. Then I feel guilty, because they make up so much of the population. I feel like a bastard. But, really, I detest them and all of their ITV-watching buddies.